The hermeneutics of takfir

Takfir: "...the practice of declaring that an
individual or a group previously considered Muslims are in fact
kafir(s) (non-believers in God)" and in some cases legalizing the
shedding of their blood.

Living a religious life or shaping one's life within a religious
framework requires and arises from an interpretation of religious texts
and from applying those texts and those interpretations to one's life
and one's approach to the wider world.

The variety of groupings and flavors of islam existing today arose
out of different interpretations, different hermeneutics or
methodologies of interpretation of the Qur'an and hadith and of the
history that has unfolded since the advent of the book (the Qur'an).
Each method of understanding the book gave rise to corresponding
theological and societal structures as well as varying approaches to
the surrounding social, political, and economic environments.

An individual's mental frame of reference, their religious
sensibilities, and the manner in which they process and filter
information is strongly impacted by what they absorb as their religious
"hermeneutic" - their manner and mechanism for understanding their
religion and the interpretations that arise from this understanding.

In general, hermeneutics refers to theories and methodologies of
interpretation, especially of scriptures and sacred texts although the
term can also be applied in a broad manner to all theories and methods
of interpreting and viewing the world. In this wider sense, every
society and every group has a hermeneutic - or sometimes multiple
overlapping hermeneutics (religious and secular) - through which they
interpret the world and interact with it. The hermeneutic could be a
cohesive one or a scattered and confused one that draws the specifics
of it's understanding from widely divergent and conflicting sources (in
correspondence with the conflicting diversities that characterize the
modern world). It may be consciously held or, more likely, has been
absorbed from various sources by a process of mental osmosis and
without conscious intention. This is true for believer and unbeliever
and for all the gradations in between these two.

For Muslims, their interaction with the world, their mode of living, of
expressing themselves in word and deed is influenced by their
understanding of the requirements of their religion, and by the
coherent meaning drawn from the Qur'an and other foundational sources
of
the religion. The focus and emphasis, the extent to which some verses
and hadith overshadow others, the depth (or lack of it) of
interpretation varies from group to group. This religious hermeneutic
is in turn impacted and
modified by the dominant modes of thought of the wider world - currents
of thought and historical, social, political, and
interpretative theories often transform how believers view the various
elements of their religion. So we have varieties of traditional
muslims, progressive muslims, conservative muslims, liberal muslims,
socialist muslims, reformist muslims, secular or cultural muslims,
various sectarian
groupings of muslims.....

For the most part these overlapping and differing hermeneutics co-exist
(even if uneasily) without undue overt strain although they constantly
push and pull in different ways upon one another and are influenced
(and exert influence) by relationships of power, wealth, politics,
economics, media discourse, intellectual discourse, differing
scholastic approaches and the like. A
clash may occur when
some critically conflicting aspect of the differing hermeneutics are
brought into public view or into the political arena in a provocative
manner. Then people generally fall back strongly into the most baseline
aspects of their respective viewpoints, seeking support and
justification within the frameworks of their individual interpretations
and approaches. Vigorous debate and intellectual conflict may occur -
but sometimes the intellectual debate gives way to ideological politics
and reply by force rather than reason.

A compelling example of the important place of (nuanced and carefully
considered) religious interpretation and understanding in guiding
religious communities (in their internal dealings and in their dealings
with other communities) is highlighted by issues such as that of
"takfir" (declaring a Muslim to be a kafir [an unbeliever] because of
an aspect of their belief or actions) and it's impact on sectarian
conflicts (which have been
amplified by extreme and turbulent political circumstances experienced
across the Muslim world). It underlines how crucial and how damaging
some expositions of Qur'anic hermeneutics around the issues of iman,
tauhid, shirk, mushrik, kufr, etc. have been in the past and how these
still continue to impact Muslims today.

One of the Qur'an's titles is "Al-Fatiha" which means "The Opener" and
for the most part the early generations of Muslims took the potential
implied in this title to heart. They treated it as a book whose study
would open up new ways, new paths, and expand the capabilities of their
fledgling societies. Muslims began in earnest to unfold the Qur'an's
theological, philosophical, sociological, political, legal, and
mystical potential. And despite internal conflicts and problems,
despite the emergence of tribal dynasties, kingdoms and fiefdoms, and
the resultant injustices and conflicts, despite high-level variations
in interpretation, the overall result was a centuries long dramatic and
rapid flowering of knowledge, a sudden mushrooming of the various arts
and sciences that even today is capable of creating awe in students of
history and its causal processes.

However, if the nascent Muslim community as a whole saw the Qur'an as
an opener of hidden potentials and avenues, a small group known as the
Khawarij (seceders) viewed it as a sealer of avenues. For them all
human judgment and even attempts to link relationships of meanings
between seemingly related verses was suspect. And their own
understanding of the Qur'an was piecemeal and fractured because of
their disconnected approach. This in turn led to a rigid and narrow
hermeneutic centered around a fractured understanding of many concepts,
the most critical of which pivoted around definitions of iman, shirk,
mushrik, and kufr. The Khawarij schism marked the beginning of a
process which rapidly led to wholesale declarations of takfir against
diligently observant Muslims who violated even minor aspects of the
Khawarij interpretation of what comprised a believer. The Khawarij
represented largely a confused but extreme theological reaction to the
political machinations and civil wars of their time. Intellectually
unprepared to deal with the complex political games (the bids for
gaining power and influence - for acquiring the caliphate as a
political prize) which emerged forcefully in the time of Imam Ali (and
which Ali, as Caliph, was forced to contend against), they
initially fell prey to political manipulation. In reaction to the
less-than-ideal situation, they sought refuge in an artificial purity
through
hermeneutics that revolved around an uncompromising doctrine of takfir,
which would allow them to eliminate whatever they considered as heresy
and deviation, whoever they considered insufficiently pure (according
to their definitions).

Note: Fundamentally, the origin of their
absolutist interpretation arose from a reaction to the political
situation -
causing them to withdraw into an extreme position where they seemingly
sought only God's judgment (through the Qur'an) and rejected faulty
human
judgment, not recognizing (as Ali pointed out to them) that
interpretation is unavoidable and when this interpretation occurs
without reference to appropriate authority, method, and knowledge,
error appears
and rapidly compounds itself. So even as they sought to avoid human
interpretation they fell into a disjointed, fanatically narrow
hermeneutic - since human interpretation is unavoidable (see sidebar).

The politically aggrieved (also being religious people) often seek
religious interpretations that allow or justify the actions they feel
compelled to take. It becomes a matter where religion does not shape
politics (politics does not unfold cohesively from the principles of
the religion) but rather politics of desperation or outrage may shape
and distort the interpretation of the religion - in this way religion
and violent politics can, at times, become dangerously conflated (and
dangerously intertwined with a misanthropic impulse to purge the
society of impure elements). But the root is politics (and
disillusionment), not religion.
Unfortunately, the impact of seeking religious justification for
extreme actions is that a (mistaken) theological precedent emerges. The
more extreme the actions taken, the more unbending and absolutist the
theological justification becomes.

The Khawarij method was to strive endlessly to determine who among
those who call themselves believers were, in reality, heretics, and
then to drive out from the community all such "so-called" believers
till only "true" believers remained. Some of the sub-sects of the
Khawarij accomplished this through wholesale slaughter of those Muslims
believed to be engaged in any form of shirk (according to the
Khawarij's own
amorphous, shifting, and politically-bound ideas of what constituted
shirk). They were characterized by their hasty and persistent tendency
to declare Muslims who deviated even fractionally from the narrow
Khawarij view of Islam as betrayers of the religion and deserving of
death. Under the Khawarij, the designations of kafir and mushrik came
to mean the wrong type of believer, rather than unbeliever. An
unbeliever was often more palatable to them than the wrong type of
believer who by his mistaken belief supposedly undermined the religion
itself. This type of takfir was a praxis first widely initiated by the
Khawarij. They made themselves judge, jury, and executioner in
labeling, convicting, and punishing those who did not measure up to
their standard (throwing aside due legal process). In the midst of the
turbulent politics of that time
their hermeneutic was not merely a theoretical position, and rather
than engage in reflection, discussion, and exchange of ideas, the
Khawarij spoke with their swords and they spoke often, and without
mercy.

They "...used to go out with their
swords to the marketplace. And when the innocent people gathered
together without being aware of it, they suddenly cried out 'La Hukm
illa lillah' (the decision is God's) and lifted up their swords against
anybody they happened to overtake, and they went on killing until they
themselves were killed. The people used to live in constant fear of
them...." (Malati, Tanbih, p. 51 - quoted from "The Concept of
Belief
in Islamic Theology" - Isutzu)

Today, echoes of the error-laden precedents set by the Khawarij
reverbrate through many parts of the Islamic world. The turbulent and
extreme conditions generated in Muslim regions torn by decade after
decade of outside interference and manipulation and internal
infighting, has resulted in a situation where the hermeneutics of
takfir have re-emerged with a modern face, enabling one to update the
Khawarij depiction for our own times: "They
used to go out with concealed explosives to the marketplaces and the
masjids. And when the innocent Muslims gathered together without being
aware of it, they set off their charges killing anybody who happened to
be near them. The people used to live in fear of them."

Many thousands of innocent Muslims lost their lives until the
Khawarij schism was finally subdued and disappeared as a distinct
religious and political entity. The Khawarij were thought by some to
have been
manipulated and used by ambitious politicians (not cleanly as a proxy
army, but as a tool of terror and as generators of political and
religious confusion) in the regions where these politicians sought
dominance.
However, because of the volatile and fanatical nature of the Khawarij,
those who at first used them (against Imam Ali - Ali was assassinated
by a
Khawarij) were also ultimately
violently set upon.

Imam Ali had warned that even if the majority of the Khawarij groups
were
subdued (as they largely were in his time), their mindset would not
come to an end and would continue to resurface under different leaders,
groupings, and banners in whichever periods Islamic intellectual
thought and the practical ethics of a balanced and tolerant polity went
into decline and political
manipulation and violence was in ascendancy. The Khawarij and their
descendants eventually transmuted into
a harmless faction but, as predicted by the Imam, the hermeneutics of
takfir resurfaced again and again in later history.

So though the Khawarij themselves faded rapidly from historical
relevancy, elements of their thought bubbled up in various periods,
although generally the Muslim societies in
which they emerged understood the danger and foolishness of such
thought and were quick to restrain and contain them.

Note: Later groups, such as the Jahmites
developed such rigid and narrow hermeneutical approaches that they
entered into absurdities such as pronouncing takfir on some of the
Prophets of the past based on some actions of those Prophets
contradicting the unusual Jahmite interpretations of certain verses.

Ghazali was very
clear on the need to subdue the overly free use of takfir that was
rising in prevalence in his time.

"...he is a downright fool who, when
asked to give his definition of kufr, answers: 'Kufr is anything that
is opposed to the Ash'arite theory or the Mu'tazilite theory, or the
hanbalite theory or indeed any other theory as the case may be. Such a
man is more blind than a blind man..." (Faysal al-Tafriqah
bayna
al-Islam wa-al-Zandaqah - from a translation by Izutsu)

There was an understanding, even among puritanical literalists such as
Ibn
Taymiyyah of the dangers of the extremist Khawarij approach to issues
of iman, shirk, and kufr.

"...the dispute on what these words
mean was the first internal discord to occur among the Muslims; because
of this problem the Muslim community was divided into...factions who
came to differ on the Sacred Book and the Sunnah and began to call one
another 'infidels'...." (Kitab al-Iman, Ibn Taymiyyah)

However, Ibn Taymiyyah himself was not entirely able to resist the easy
road to applying such labels to Muslim groups, a tendency which in
more recent (Colonial) times was once again taken to Khawarij-like
extremes by self-declared reformers who often sought the backing and
modern weaponry of Colonial powers in their bid to
"reform" (a euphemism for subduing and gaining ascendancy over
competing tribes in the region) those Muslims who they believed
were engaged in shirk and bidah and simultaneously gain the
power-position of Colonial
proxy.

Our modern era has also been beset with numerous instances of groups
who have fashioned their religious interpretations around a hermeneutic
of takfir or who have tacked on such a hermeneutic to their existing
schools of thought. On occasion, these groups have been supported,
buttressed, or sheltered by foreign powers precisely because of their
willingness to kill fellow Muslims - this making them, depending on the
geopolitical circumstances, useful proxy agents or advantageous
generators of confusion, fear, and chaos - all of which are effective
precursors for clearing a path to externally imposed solutions that,
unlike internal natively generated solutions, are in line with the
wider interests of such powers. But, as it was for the Muslims of the
past, such groups,
whether they are driven solely by their own narrowly focused internal
hermeneutic of
takfir, or whether their extremism is used for the ambition of broader
political movements - this
hermeneutic is a hermeneutic of disaster for Muslims.

The myriad facets of intellectual expression historically inspired by
the Qur'an and the profound and deep hermeneutics that flowered in
various historical forms and in various schools of thought stands in
stark contrast to the vicious tail-swallowing vision of an ideology of
takfir. For most of Muslim history, the ideology of takfir was a
troubling but well-contained side-issue. In recent times, in a strange
historical aberration wrought by vast global political changes and the
turbulence and violence they have engendered, it has
come into a position (hopefully temporary) of destructive prominence.

"(It is) a Book We have revealed
to you abounding in good that they may ponder over its verses, and that
those who cultivate understanding may be deeply mindful....Are those
who know and those who do not know alike? Only the people of
understanding are deeply mindful.... And none know its complete
interpretation (hermeneutic) but God and those who are profoundly and
firmly rooted in knowledge...." (Qur'an 38:29, Qur'an 39:9, Qur'an 3:7)
-
Irshaad Hussain (from
February 2002)

In Times of strife

Imam Ali, commenting on the Khawarij claim that they turn all
judgments over to God, through God's uninterpreted pronouncements in
the Qur'an, said:

"The Qur'an is a book, covered,
between two flaps, and it does not
speak. It should therefore necessarily have an interpreter. People
alone
can be such interpreters....."(Khutba
124, Nahjul Balagha)The imam
then goes on to point out that the most knowledgeable and trustworthy
concerning the Qur'an and the sunnah and their interpretation are the
ahl-al-bait (the family of the Prophet).

Imam Ali, commenting on how to deal with enemies in times of strife,
said:

"Never reject a peace to which
your enemy calls you and in which is
God's pleasure, for in peace there is ease for your soldiers,
relaxation from your cares and security for your land. But be cautious,
very cautious, with your enemy after (having made) peace with him, for
the enemy may have drawn near in order to take advantage of (your)
negligence. Therefore be prudent about trusting your enemy in this
(matter).

If you bind an agreement between
yourself and your enemy or clothe him
in a protective covenant, guard your agreement in good faith and tend
to your covenant with fidelity. Make of yourself a shield before what
you have granted, for men do not unite more firmly in any of the
obligations (imposed upon them) by God than in attaching importance to
fidelity in agreements, despite the division among their sects and the
diversity of their opinions. Even al-mushrikun had already
adhered to that (honoring agreements) among themselves before the
Muslims, by reason of the evil consequences of treachery that they had
seen. So never betray your protective covenant, do not break your
agreement and never deceive your enemy, for none is audacious before
God but a wretched fool. God has made His agreement and His protective
covenant a security which He has spread among the servants by His
mercy, and a sanctuary in whose impregnability they may rest and in
whose proximity they may spread forth. Within it there is no
corruption, treachery or deceit.

Make not an agreement in which you
allow deficiencies and rely not upon
ambiguity of language after confirmation and finalization (of the
agreement). Let not the straitness of an affair in which an agreement
before God is binding upon you invite you to seek its abrogation
unjustly. For your patience in the straitness of an affair, hoping for
its solution and the blessing of its outcome, is better than an act of
treachery. You would fear the act's consequence and (you would fear)
that a liability before God will encompass you, a liability from which
you will not be exempted in this world or the next.

Beware of blood and spilling it
unlawfully, for nothing is more
deserving of vengeance (from God), greater in its consequence or more
likely to (bring about) a cessation of blessing and the cutting off of
(one's appointed) term than shedding blood unjustly. God - glory be to
Him - on the Day of Resurrection will begin judgment among His servants
over the blood they have spilt. So never strengthen your rule by
shedding unlawful blood, for that is among the factors which weaken and
enfeeble it, nay, which overthrow and transfer it. You have no excuse
before God and before me for intentional killing, for in that there is
bodily retaliation...."